CV32

The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996–2017 (RAND, pdf)

What is far fetched?

What if the Aircraft Carrier Had Never Been Invented? (Atlantic Council)

As far as radar detection is concerned, yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Only because we are forced by the simplicity of the model. I don't think we ought to volunteer to be further constrained by the model and, in so doing, hamper or simplify gameplay even further. The size of the group does not automatically make radar detection easier. It depends on the wavelength and resolution of the radar, the RCS and aspect of the target, and yes, even the type of group formation, etc. By assigning higher detection values to groups of aircraft, especially the same aircraft types, we would be making clumsy assumptions. For example, how we do know that the group formation is a ladder or stack, and not a potentially less detectable trail formation? (Assigning higher detection values to groups of different aircraft types, as in the current model, is a reasonable compromise because presumably the group is composed of aircraft of different roles and missions, e.g. fighters escorting strikers, etc). I agree that other methods of detection (visual, acoustic, etc) call for different analyses, but again, its not as simple or as hard and fast a rule as you may think. ESM (depending on capability or generation, something that again, we don't model) doesn't necessarily pick up a large group of emitters more easily because there are more emitters. They are usually detected more easily because they appear on multiple bearings. An older ESM set, however, might only pick up a emission on a single bearing and have no idea that there are actually multiple emitters approaching on that bearing in a trail formation.

Unless we are referring to close knit formations of aircraft, then there is really no good reason to raise the detection level of a group of aircraft. And I assume we are also referring to detection by radar. Those details are important. And since we cannot manipulate how a group of aircraft organize their formation, e.g. formation types, sub groups, varying altitudes, staggered groups, etc., I am not in favour of adjusting the values.

Min vic achieved at 9:15:59 to go. Still playing. Edit: Maj vic achieved at 9:08:26 to go. Destroyed 1,463 aircraft, 102 helicopters, 1 carrier, 81 ships, 3 submarines, 20 bases and 19 mobile air defence units. Lost 97 aircraft, 8 helicopters, 9 ships, 1 submarine, 3 mobile air defence units.

The Ultimate Weapon: Combining a Battleship and an Aircraft Carrier? (National Interest) To see this platform in action, check out Ed Ladner's North Carolina class in the HCDB!

Israel to double attack range of F-35 (Globes)

In F-35 Debate, U.S. Air Force Leaders Bully Critics (War is Boring)

Already done, and will appear in the next release, due sometime in September.

That's plenty clear. Doesn't jive me with my memory of what we have discussed before in terms of the rules, but I'm old and subject to memory loss.

No, because HCE does not model other variables like terrain. If we had hills, valleys, trees, buildings and other clutter, low flying cruise missiles would be harder to detect. Yes, larger groups of aircraft are easier to detect. I don't quite recall, but I don't think missile groups are treated the same? Tony can check for that.

Sao Paulo lacks the appropriate deck coating to handle the F-35B's hot exhaust, for one, let alone the aviation fuel and ordnance capacity needed to operate the size of the air wing you've placed aboard her. (I don't want to say too much for fear of spoilers). Then there's the host of electronic and communications fits she would need. Like I said earlier, that's a perfectly legitimate approach to scenario writing. But its one or the other - alternate reality/history or best attempt at realism - and not typically both simultaneously. It is an excellent scenario writing tool.

Right, but you didn't rename her Sao Paulo in the scenario. Moreover, there is serious doubt about whether she could operate F-35B, even if they were in Brazilian Navy service. Alternate reality is a perfectly legitimate approach for scenario building, but if your intent is reflecting near reality, then the slope is very slippery.

Oh I didn't think you were concerned about such things. Otherwise, all of the scenarios would need attention. NACV4, for example, employs the French carrier Foch. She went to Brazil in 2000, and hasn't seen much sea since.

Grounding the Ayatollah’s Tomcats (War is Boring)

Take heed ... this one (MED5) is noticeably more challenging.

Thread hijack! Min Vic achieved at 9:02:xx to go. Total Vic achieved shortly thereafter, at 9:03:27 to go. Back to regularly scheduled programming ...

Indonesia selects Su-35 to meet air combat requirement (Jane's)

DF-26 IRBM may have ASM variant, China reveals at 3 September parade (Jane's) Interesting development, especially as it was touted as a 'Guam killer'. Now it might be both? (keeping in mind that the ASBM concept still has some gaping holes)

China would invade Taiwan in certain circumstances: MND report (Focus Taiwan)

Why Is the PLAN Near Alaska? (The Diplomat) Scenario fodder (complete with OOB) for the under utilized Bering Strait battleset!

Yes, you ought to exploit the 'repeat attack' tool and wherever possible, vary the time line so that AI attacks are not predictable. It is one of the most under-utilized features of the SE.

Inside the Design of China’s Yuan-class Submarine (USNI News)

Step by Step, Here's How to Fight China (War is Boring) Notice how none of the naval wargaming sims - old or new - come remotely close to modeling this.